Which agency for urban experimentalism? Tactical urbanism at Grand Voisins in Paris and Corviale’s Mitreo in Rome

Author/s Marco Cremaschi, Silvia Lucciarini
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/128 Language Italian
Pages 14 P. 95-108 File size 174 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2022-128009
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Since 2000’ in urbanism’s ideas repertoire, transitory and tatcical urbanism has been stepped in. In other words, it refers to local initiatives of temporary (re)use of vacant spaces, where local communities play a central role. In these instituzionalized experiences of public policy, the costruction of the actor’s arena and their agency power leads to collaborative or competitive behaviours. The paper briefly examines the agency dynamics and processes in two local contexts, le Grand Voisins in Paris and the Corviale’s Mitreo in Rome.

Keywords: tactical urbanism, coproduction, agency, urban regeneration, collective action, regulation

  1. Adisson F. (2017) Choisir ses occupants. Quand les grands propriétaires adoptent des collectifs pour la gestion transitoire des friches urbaines. Métropolitiques, 6 janvier.
  2. Amin A., Graham S (1997). The ordinary city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 22(4): 411-429.
  3. Aurore, Plateau Urbain, Yes We Camp (2020). Intentions initiales, impacts réels et beaux imprévus, essaimage et perspectives 2015-2020. Dossier de clôture de l’expérience. Paris.
  4. Bragaglia F., Rossignolo C. (2021). Temporary urbanism as a new policy strategy: a contemporary panacea or a trojan horse? International Planning Studies, 26(4): 370-386. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2021.1882963
  5. Carreau-Touzé D. (2019). Connecter des espaces sans personnes à des personnes sans espaces: les Grands Voisins, un lieu infini. Art et histoire de l’art, dumas-02385047.
  6. Castán Broto V., Alves N.S., (2018) Intersectionality challenges for the coproduction of urban services: notes for a theoretical and methodological agenda. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2): 367-386. DOI: 10.1177/0956247818790208
  7. Chatterton P. (2000). Will the real Creative City please stand up? City, 4(3): 390-397. DOI: 10.1080/713657028
  8. Connelly D.R., Zhang J., Faerman S. (2014). The paradoxical nature of collaboration. In Bingham L.B., O’Leary R. (eds.). Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management. New York: Routledge.
  9. Crouch C., Keune M. (2012). The Governance of Economic Uncertainty: Beyond the ‘New Social Risks’ Analysis. In Bonoli G., Natali D. (eds.). The Politics of the New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. De La Casa C. (2017). De l’urbanisme temporaire à l’urbanisme transitoire, un cheminement entre positionnements, intérêts et valeurs: SNCF Immobilier se prête à l’expérience. Architecture, aménagement de l’espace. dumas-01623172.
  11. Dewey J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.
  12. Diguet C., Zeiger P. (2017). L’urbanisme transitoire: aménager autrement. Note rapide de l’Institut d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme, 741: 1-6.
  13. Diguet C., Zeiger P., Cocquière A. (2020). Temporary Urbanism: Planning Differently. Paris Region Development and Urban Planning Institute, 1: 1-6.
  14. European Union European Regional Development Fund (2018). A Journey Through Temporary Use. -- Disponibile al sito https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/media/refill_final_publication.pdf
  15. Ferreri M. (2015). The seductions of temporary urbanism. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15: 181-191.
  16. Fijalkof Y. (ed.). (2017). Dire la ville c’est faire la ville: La performativité des discours sur l’espace urbain. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
  17. Gayet M. (2020) La friche des Grands Voisins fait le bilan de 5 ans d’occupation légale. Enlarge your Paris. Paris, 22 sept.
  18. Hay C., Wincott D. (1998). Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism. Political Studies, 5: 951-957. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00177
  19. Hou J. (ed.) (2020). Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. New York: Routledge.
  20. Lawler S. (2005). Disgusted Subjects: The Making of Middle-Class Identities. The Sociological Review, 53(3): 429-446.
  21. Le Galés P., Vitale T. (2015). Diseguaglianze e discontinuità nel governo delle grandi metropoli. Un’agenda di ricerca. Territorio, 74: 7-17. DOI: 10.3280/TR2015-074001
  22. Lucciarini S. (2018). Ruolo e rapporti tra attore pubblico e privato nel governo del territorio. Il caso di Roma. Sociologia urbana e rurale, 116: 13-28. DOI: 10.3280/SUR2018-116002
  23. Lucciarini S., Violante A. (2007). Trasformazioni socio-economiche e mutamento della città: il caso di Roma. Argomenti, 19: 95-126.
  24. Madanipour A. (2017). Cities in Time: Temporary urbanism and the future of the city. London: Bloomsbury.
  25. Matoga A. (2019). How Media Shape the Perception of Temporary Uses. disP - The Planning Review, 55(1): 85-96. DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2019.1598114
  26. Moulaert F., Mehmood A., Manganelli A. (2017). Spazi d’Innovazione Sociale. In Monteduro G. (ed.). Sussidiarietà e Innovazione Sociale. Costruire un welfare societario. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  27. Ostrom E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World development, 24(6): 1073-1087.
  28. Oswalt P., Overmeyer M., Misselwitz M. (2013). Urban Catalyst the Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: DOM.
  29. Peng Y., Wei Y., Bai X. (2019). Scaling urban sustainability experiments: Contextualization as an innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227: 302-312.
  30. Pernicka S. (2006). Organizing the Self-Employed: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 12(2): 125-142. DOI: 10.1177/0959680106065024
  31. Sabatier P. (1986). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1): 21-48. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00003846
  32. Sabel C.F., Simon W.H. (2011). Minimalism and Experimentalism in the Administrative State. The Georgetown Law Journal, 100(53): 53-93.
  33. Sassen S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  34. Schmidt V.A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 303-326.
  35. Sechi G. (2018). L’occupation temporaire des friches et des espaces publics : des politiques culturelles innovantes?. In Hure M., Rousseau M., Béal V., Gardon S., Meillerand M.C. (Re)penser les politiques urbaines. Retour sur vingt ans d’action dans les villes françaises (1995-2015). Paris: PUCA.
  36. Van Bortel G., Mullins D. (2009). Critical perspectives on network governance in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24: 203-219.

  • Eventually detached, eventually belonging. A residential narratives' based institutionalist perspective on urban regeneration and the middle classes in Milan and Marseille Alessandro Coppola, Silvia Lucciarini, in Cities 104052/2023 pp.104052
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.104052
  • Tactical Urbanism Interventions for the Urban Environment: Which Economic Impacts? Marco Rossitti, Alessandra Oppio, Francesca Torrieri, Marta Dell’Ovo, in Land /2023 pp.1457
    DOI: 10.3390/land12071457

Marco Cremaschi, Silvia Lucciarini, Quale agency per gli esperimenti urbani? Sperimentalismo e tattiche nel Grands Voisins a Parigi e al Mitreo di Corviale a Roma in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 128/2022, pp 95-108, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2022-128009